Tax Evasion and Money Laundering: Insights from Textual and Contextual Analysis
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.60154/jaepp.2026.v27n2p27Keywords:
Tax Evasion, Money Laundering, FATF, Expected Utility FunctionAbstract
This study examines whether tax evasion operates as a predicate offense for money laundering by integrating an economic model of concealment with an analysis of 4,534 IRS Criminal Investigation (IRS-CI) prosecutions from 2021 through mid-2025. It addresses the gap between the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) framework, which treats serious tax crimes as predicate offenses for money laundering, and US law, which often treats underreported taxes as noncriminal. Building on the Allingham-Sandmo (1972) model and recent work by Kemsley and Morgan (2022, 2024), the study introduces a convex concealment cost function and distinguishes standalone tax evasion from sequential evasion-and-laundering behaviors.
Based on an analysis of 4,535 IRS CI prosecution news releases, cases were classified into three categories: tax evasion charges, money laundering charges, and joint prosecutions involving both offenses. The results show that 2,727 cases, approximately 60 percent, involve both tax evasion and money laundering charges. LIFT, Pointwise Mutual Information (PMI), Normalized Pointwise Mutual Information (NPMI), and Fisher's Exact Test revealed links between specific forms of tax evasion, such as corporate pass-through schemes, payroll tax violations, and false returns, and distinct laundering mechanisms, including wire transfers, shell entities, bulk cash movements, real estate acquisitions, and cryptocurrency transactions. Overall, these findings suggest that current U.S. enforcement practice commonly treats tax evasion and money laundering as separate but interconnected offenses, supporting the view that tax evasion serves as a predicate offense in a two-step process that aligns more closely with the FATF approach than with models that equate tax evasion directly with money laundering. Collectively, this study bridges the gap between economic theory and enforcement practice. By demonstrating that U.S. prosecutors treat tax evasion and money laundering as distinct, sequential offenses, the findings refine the single-stage models proposed by Kemsley and Morgan (2022, 2024) and validate the FATF two-stage framework. Furthermore, by identifying these behaviors at the subtype level, this study provides practical benchmarks to support Anti-Money-Laundering (AML) detection and strengthen cross-border enforcement.
References
1. Allingham, M.G., and Sandmo, A. (1972). Income Tax Evasion: A Theoretical Analysis. Journal of Public Economics, 1 (3-4), 323-338.
2. Behrendt, P. (2020). Tax evasion as the predicate offense of money laundering under German and US law. Zeitschrift für Internationale Strafrechtsdogmatik, 4, 196–209. https://www.zis-online.com/dat/artikel/2020_4_1360.pdf
3. Benjamini, Y., & Hochberg, Y. (1995). Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological), 57(1), 289–300.
4. Bouma, G. (2009). Normalized (Pointwise) Mutual Information in Collocation Extraction. In Proceedings of the Biennial GSCL Conference 2009 (pp. 31–40)
5. Bridges, M. and Green, P. (1999), “Tax evasion and money laundering – an open and shut case?”, Journal of Money Laundering Control, Vol. 3, pp. 51-56.
6. Church, K. W., & Hanks, P. (1990). Word association norms, mutual information, and lexicography. Computational Linguistics, 16(1), 22–29.
7. Damani, O. P. (2013). Improving Pointwise Mutual Information by Incorporating Significant Co-occurrence. In Proceedings of the 2013 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (pp. 163–169).
8. Egmont Group of Financial Intelligence Units. (2020, July). Money laundering of serious tax crimes: Enhancing financial intelligence units’ detection capacities and fostering information exchange [Public bulletin]. https://egmontgroup.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/2020_Public_Bulletin_Money_Laundering_of_Serious_Tax_Crimes.pdf
9. Financial Intelligence Analysis Unit. (2021, November). Typologies, red flags and indicators of tax-related money laundering. FIAU. https://fiaumalta.org/app/uploads/2021/11/FIAU-Factsheet-Typologies-Red-Flags-Indicators-of-Tax-Related-ML.pdf
10. International Monetary Fund. (2012, July 17). Revisions to the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) standard: Information note to the Executive Board. https://www.imf.org/external/np/pp/eng/2012/071712a.pdf
11. Kemsley, D., Kemsley, S. A., & Morgan, F. T. (2022). Tax evasion and money laundering: a complete framework. Journal of Financial Crime, 29(2), 589-602.
12. Deen Kemsley, Sean A. Kemsley, Frank T. Morgan; Tax evasion on lawful income: is it a form of money laundering? Journal of Financial Crime 11 January 2024; 31 (1): 33–43. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFC-11-2022-0268
13. FATF, Money Laundering: https://www.fatf-gafi.org/en/pages/frequently-asked-questions.html#tabs-36503a8663-item-6ff811783c-tab
14. Financial Action Task Force Recommendation: https://www.fatf-gafi.org/en/publications/Fatfrecommendations/Fatf-recommendations.html
15. Financial Action Task Force Recommendation (Updated October 2025): www.fatf-gafi.org/content/dam/fatf-gafi/recommendations/FATF%20Recommendations%202012.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com
16. Gavrilova, Y. (2023, October 31). Pros and cons of Python programming language. https://serokell.io/blog/python-pros-and-cons
17. IRS Criminal Investigation press releases: https://www.irs.gov/compliance/criminal-investigation/criminal-investigation-press-releases
18. Maugeri, A. M. (2018). Self-laundering of the proceeds of tax evasion in comparative law: Between effectiveness and safeguards: Between effectiveness and safeguards. New Journal of European Criminal Law, 9(1), 83-108. https://doi.org/10.1177/2032284418757385
19. US Department of Justice, Tax Division Directive No. 128. https://www.justice.gov/archives/usam/tax-resource-manual-14-tax-division-directive-no-128?utm_source=chatgpt.com
20. 18 U.S.C. §§ 1956 and 1957. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1956?utm_source=chatgpt.com
21. United States v. Anderson, 1:05-cr-00056 (D.D.C. 2005). https://www.justice.gov/archive/opa/pr/2008/November/us-vs-anderson.pdf
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Bea Chiang

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.